Councillors — and this reporter — are looking a little tired this morning. A closed door meeting went until nearly 12:30 last night.

One of the issues discussed was the hot potato regarding Councillor Bernie Morelli harassing an employee. After private legal advise, council decided not to revisit their previous decision to not reprimand Morelli, ignoring the advice of an independent investigator.

Councillor Brad Clark asked to reopen the matter, saying he was concerned council "erred in law" by applying a double standard. Three licensing managers were fired by City Manager Glen Peace as part of the same compliant.

The city's lawyer told council last night that he did not believe they applied a double standard because they were not involved in the decision to fire the staffers. Clark said after hearing the legal advice there's no will to revisit the decision. The matter seems closed again. Some councillors did ask that the investigator’s report on staff be released publicly, but were told it would be an offense for the city to release it.

It's clear 'council' didn't apply a double standard because they didn't make the call to fire staff. But from what I heard from the public, that wasn't the beef. The question is: Why was the investigator's expertise enough for the city manager to fire three staff, but not for council to reprimand one of their own?

I promised a second act on the transit drama and I wasn’t wrong. There’s a move afoot to reconsider the controversial transit fare increase. Apparently some councillors kissed and made up yesterday and talked about a new plan that could prevent the increase. Councillors Bob Bratina and Brian McHattie, who are taking heat for supporting the increase, are behind the move to reexamine the issue. Stay tuned for the debate and updates here.

p.s. I talked to the clerk about the status of the standing vote. As a budget vote at a committee of the whole meeting, it would need a reconsideration motion to be reopen for debate at committee. Or councillors can wait until the whole budget is presented for approval at a council meeting and debate it then in a few weeks.

Update: Councillor Sam Merulla just clarified for me that he prompted the private conversation about the fare hike when he went to talk to Bratina about the fallout of the decision.

March 27, 2007

City council should really sell tickets to its budget meetings. Today’s episode was like no show I’ve ever seen. Even veterans agreed they’d never seen a debate like it.
Councillors voted to increase bus fares. The debate was heated and at times turned into a shouting match.
Councillor Sam Merulla, who opposed the increase, was almost ejected for his behaviour. He jeered colleagues supporting the increase, laughed as they spoke, yelled out “you’re a joke,” criticized Mayor Fred Eisenberger, saying even Larry Di Ianni was more transparent. Eisenberger stopped the meeting and told Merulla they wouldn’t continue until he calmed down. Merulla only became more animated, asking to be removed on behalf of the city’s poor, seniors and disabled who would be harmed by the increase. He also got into a side argument with Councillor Brian McHattie who supported the increase. The vocal transit advocate said the increase is needed to fund improvements in the system to attract more riders. Merulla called McHattie a hypocrite and warned “I’m coming after you.” Merulla says he meant in the debate, but McHattie — who yelled out ‘you can’t intimidate me’— says that’s open to interpretation and is exploring his options after feeling harassed. Other councillors were angered by a move that shut down debate and forced the vote.
Drama aside, cash fares are going up 15 cents, the first jump since 2003.
Here’s who opposed the increase: Merulla, Powers, Collins, Whitehead, Duvall, Morelli and Jackson.
The decision has already sparked flames on Raise the Hammer. I’m sure we can expect a second act at council.

The proposed bus fare hike is finally back before council today. Budget deliberations are several days behind at this point. The recent shortfall from the province in social services funding means things are about to get nasty if councillors want to avoid a 5 per cent tax increase. That puts council in a tough spot not to improve the transit fare increase which will lower taxes marginally.
But some councillors are already saying they won’t support a fare hike because it hurts the city’s poor and the environment. Staff are proposing to increase the adult cash bus fare by 40 cents over the next three years, with other fares also slated to rise. It would mean 15 cents this year. Seniors' passes would see the biggest jump -- $100 a year by 2010. Read the staff report here.
It's estimated the hikes would generate $1 million in extra revenue, but cost 550,000 lost rides. There's already good debate happening on Bill Dunphy's poverty blog on this issue.
The city’s transit system is in desperate need of extra funding, the big question always is: who should pay? All taxpayers or the users?

March 23, 2007

Lots of spit flying at City Hall this morning. City councillors are outraged by yesterday’s provincial budget. The city didn’t get its full request for special social services funding and it was cut out of a deal that saw the same costs uploaded for GTA municipalities.
"This is absolutely disgraceful," said Councillor David Mitchell.
"We are being bullied," said Councillor Margaret McCarthy.
"Travesty," said Councillor Terry Whitehead.
"Hamilton is irrelevant to the Liberal government of Ontario,” said Councillor Brian McHattie, adding the four local Liberal representatives are now at risk for the election. “This is an entirely political budget.”
The only person who wasn’t irate was Mayor Fred Eisenberger. He says he wants more time to clarify the facts to see exactly what Hamilton got as a total package. His muted response stunned his colleagues.
While he was out at a meeting with MPP Marie Bountrogianni, council agreed it was time to play hardball with the province. There’s talk of withholding money from the province or telling taxpayers they’ll be forced to pay more this year because of McGuinty’s government. Councillor Brad Clark, who joked he needed to take his blood pressure medication after the budget, said he’d like signs in the medians explaining there would have been flowers if not for the province.

March 22, 2007

I’ve never seen the city’s money man Joe Rinaldo mad. He was steaming today after reviewing the province’s budget. Hamilton did not fare well to say the least.
The city’s request for $17 million to cover downloaded social services (here's a great backgrounder on the issue) was met with only $12 million. The worse insult in Rinaldo's eyes was the province’s decision to phase out the GTA social services pool. The municipalities around Toronto share the cost of running social programs. Richer municipalities like Mississauga and Halton hate the deal because they pay so much to Toronto. The province bowed to their complaints and vowed to upload the cost, saving the municipalities some $200 million over several years. Hamilton isn’t part of the deal and will have to go back next year again asking for help.
MPP Marie Bountrogianni defended the Liberals saying uploading across the province takes time and that Hamilton has received lots of social services funding. She calls it a good budget.
Rinaldo couldn’t disagree more. Cutting through all the announcements — many of which were already coming or are federal money — the city is only getting about $3 million in new cash for brown fields.
Who will utilimately pay the price? Taxpayers. The shortfall means homeowners are now looking at the tax increase of close to 5 per cent!
Mayor Fred Eisenberger said he was disappointed by the budget. Previous mayor Larry Di Ianni was renowned for his lobbying at the province to get Hamilton money. Eisenberger says he’s worked just as hard, but it’s clear he doesn’t have the same Liberal ties. Did it matter?

It's provincial budget day, are we all excited? I won't hold it against you if you're not holding your breath for the 4 p.m. announcement, but there is good reason to in Hamilton. The city still hasn't heard if it's getting $17
million to help cover the cost of downloaded social services. There's no doubt council will be listening closely to Finance Minister Greg Sorbara's speech. If the province doesn't hand over the cash, it would mean an additional tax increase of 3 per cent — that could mean an overall increase of 6 per cent or higher. No one expects the province won't come up with the dough, so now it's just a waiting game. Last year the funding was announced on budget day, so it's possible it will again today. It's also possible the budget could have money for the Lister Block. Stay tuned, only six hours to go!

March 21, 2007

Mayor Fred needs his budget survey results back. The city clerk sent out an email today asking that anyone with a copy of the survey results return them for legal reasons. It appears a few public comments that named staff slipped by in the making of the book. One of the mayor's staff realized the mistake this week while preparing a pdf of the report to be publicly released. Legal staff recommended they ask for the books back before someone complained. So far the books were only distributed to senior staff, council and a few members of the media (myself included). I'd challenge anyone to find the names amid the 200 or so solid pages of comments...I certainly couldn't :) Update: found it...not good indeed.

March 20, 2007

Some rare sparks from Councillor Brian McHattie today on the anti-idling debate. He took exception to Councillor David Mitchell voting against consulting the public about the proposed bylaw. He demanded to know why the rural councillor was opposed to the motion and loudly declared he hoped the media would report Mitchell is against public consultation. Mitchell fought back, accusing McHattie of twisting his words. He said he won't agree to a public meeting because he thinks the bylaw is not enforceable.

From today's discussion it looks like the anti-idling bylaw, one of Mayor Fred Eisenberger's pet projects, won't pass without a fight. Several councillors who had supported the idea pulled back after learning it’s unlikely the city will recoup its costs of hiring an extra bylaw officer to enforce the rule. Other cities with similar bylaws have seen minimal fines. Eisenberger argued the goal isn't to generate revenue, but change behaviour.

Do you support spending more than $100,000 for an anti-idling bylaw that is unlikely to generate enough tickets to cover the expense? Is the environmental goal more important than the dollar figure?

Nicole Macintyre

Nicole MacIntyre is the queen of kings. A married mother of two boys, including the world's former worst sleeper, she's also a reporter and parenting columnist at the Hamilton Spectator. A devotee of the 'whatever works' approach to child-rearing, Nicole has learned to never say "I'll never" when it comes to parenting.